Whistleblower or detective?
[ch 4: page 28]The law provides protection from dismissal or detriment for making a protected disclosure, not for investigating whether or not suspected wrongs are taking place. Whistleblowing involves handing over information, not playing detective. Here is a good example:
Mr Evans, an IT worker at an independent school, believed his school’s IT system was not secure enough to protect the data of staff and pupils, so he reported this to the school. Over the weekend, he then hacked into the system from home to demonstrate this. The school gave him a written warning for misconduct. The Court of Appeal (CA) confirmed that this warning was not a whistleblowing detriment. Reporting information to the school about the risk of security failings was a protected disclosure, but breaching the school’s computer system to prove that the security failings existed was not. Evans was not disciplined for telling the head that the system was vulnerable (which would have been unlawful). He was disciplined for breaking into the system to prove it. The CA rejected Evans’ argument that his whole “course of conduct”, including the hacking, was one long “disclosure”.
Bolton School v Evans [2006] EWCA Civ 1653